Paul Goldsmith: Justice Minister on the changes to shoplifting offences, the High Court's ruling on Kim Dotcom's extradition

The Government wants to deal with shoplifting offences in a quicker way instead of going through the entire court system.  

The Justice Minister's newly released Cabinet paper proposes the burden of proof should fall on the suspect to prove their innocence.  

This clashes with the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, as protected in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.  

But Paul Goldsmith told Mike Hosking this could be compared to a traffic offence. 

He says someone caught speeding is given a ticket and must pay a fine unless there is a reasonable excuse. 

He’s also welcoming a High Court ruling that the decision to extradite Kim Dotcom was legal.  

The Megaupload millionaire had challenged Paul Goldsmith's decision to surrender him to the US earlier this year, arguing the charges against him are politically motivated.  

Dotcom fought the extradition process all the the way to the Supreme Court and his latest effort was a judicial review.  

The Justice Minister told Hosking he's pleased to see his decision upheld but notes there are still potential appeals to be had. 

The Dotcom legal battle began 13 years ago. 

LISTEN ABOVE 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
A bit of banks growing around the government's proposal for

(00:01):
new shoplifting laws that you change would shift the burden
of proof onto suspects. In other words, you are guilty
until you prove yourself otherwise. This is where the Bill
of Right Tact comes in, of course. Paul Goldsmith, Justice
Minister with us.

Speaker 2 (00:11):
Good morning, Good morning Michael.

Speaker 1 (00:13):
As regards the shoplifting, is this sort of the same
as proceeds of crime. In other words, you know the
onus is now on you.

Speaker 2 (00:20):
Ah No, it's more akin to a traffic offense. So
you know you're speeding, you get a ticket. There's no
sort of debate about it really unless you've got a
reasonable excuse and you pay the fine. And the whole
purpose of it is to find to come up with
a quick and swift way to deal with shoplifting other

(00:41):
than the alternative, which is to go through the whole
court process.

Speaker 1 (00:43):
Define a reasonable excuse.

Speaker 2 (00:46):
Ah, well, I don't know. You're in the supermarket and
you're three year old, stuck a banana in your handbag
and you didn't realize something like that.

Speaker 1 (00:54):
Perhaps is that that's not reasonable. Banana shouldn't be in
your handbags. And this is the problem, isn't it mean.

Speaker 2 (01:00):
So no, no, no, no no. I think that well,
that is the design that people sometimes do make genuine mistakes,
and that the legislation can be designed to deal with that.
But that the idea though, is simply to come up
with something that is simple and swift.

Speaker 1 (01:15):
And when we come to the Bill of Rights and
the angst around or so called angst around the Bill
of Rights, is it true to say you can basically
do this. You are the government, you have the numbers,
and you can argue about the Bill of Rights. Still
you blue in the face. This is going to happen.

Speaker 2 (01:30):
Yes, But we don't sort of just ignore the Bill
of Rights. Will design it in a way. We'll set
out to design it a way that works effectively within
the Bill of Rights. And just as the speeding of
fine fine does as well. That's the basic sort of process.
I mean, we've got to remember, we've got a real
issue of retail crime. It's a big increasing people going
around stealing stuff. We've got to do something different. Currently

(01:52):
you've got to go off to court. That's a very
high threshold and doesn't happen enough. And so what we're
introducing is a swift and effective fine as an intermediate
step to deal with things so that there is a
real consequence for that level of shoplifting.

Speaker 1 (02:05):
As part of this the first respond to stuff. I
don't think anyone's going to disagree with the changes to that,
are they?

Speaker 2 (02:11):
No, I don't think. So. We've got a whole bunch
of changes there to make sure that the people that
put themselves in harm's way on behalf of society especially
looked after.

Speaker 1 (02:21):
Do you see it as a deterrent or more a
punishment given as far as I can work out, people
who attack first responders aren't in their right mind and
therefore will have to pay the price of the lad stage,
as opposed to them thinking it through before they do it.

Speaker 2 (02:34):
Well, it's a little bit of both. It does seem
to signal and it filters out and it makes it
clear that we hold those people specially in regard because
they're putting themselves at risk.

Speaker 1 (02:43):
Dot com. While I've got you, explain to me how
something that started in twenty twelve is still working its
way through the New Zealand court system.

Speaker 2 (02:51):
Well, look, it's a very long and slow process and
this individual case obviously goes through that process and it
has been very, very long, and that's as it is.
That for the future, you know, I will be looking
at the extradition rules because, as you say, it's taken
a very long time.

Speaker 1 (03:08):
Is justice being seen to be done or is justice
being seen to be manipulated?

Speaker 2 (03:14):
Well, well you have to trust our justice system and
I trust our justice system.

Speaker 1 (03:19):
Are you glad you won yesterday? And from that? How
much more is there to go? Do you think?

Speaker 2 (03:25):
Well, yes, I'm obviously I'm pleased that my decision was upheld,
but from where there are potential appeals to be had?

Speaker 1 (03:35):
Still, yes, there are. And if you haven't followed this
with the sort of detail many of us have, then
I'll work you through it in a couple of moments.
Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith, I thank you for your time.
As always, For more from the Mic Asking Breakfast, listen
live to news Talks it'd be from six am weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.